Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by mtvgeneration, Apr 7, 2021 at 3:14 PM.
The legacy of KISS and Van Halen.
The Dolls were (are) a footnote.
Except KISS are heavy metal. One could say they define the look.
You must have a pretty broad spectrum of heavy metal in mind then. You surely don't think Poison are similar to Pantera? I think there has to be a way to separate bands that have a heavier sound from those bands that don't if you know what I mean.
Pantera came later.
Of course there is a spectrum...but if you look at the roots:
There are many genres just inside these bands. Heavy Metal is as light as Poison to as heavy as Swedish death metal.
You can sub-genre till the end of time, but the umbrella is Heavy Metal.
I think there's merit in almost all musical genres... sometimes you have to dig to find it. With hair metal the image perpetuated in videos, clothing (leather/spandex) and hairspray overshadows the fact that there was some great music in hair metal. I wasn't that into it in the 80s but as time has gone by I've discovered a lot of music I enjoy including the aforementioned Motley Crue.
Pantera didn't come later. They released their first album in early 80s, someone correct me if I'm wrong. They were around before Poison anyway.
I get what you're saying about the umbrella term and you're probably right about that. But for purposes of discussion, it's necessary to categorise and narrow the definition otherwise you'd be comparing bands that have little in common or are too far apart on the spectrum.
It's weird to see so much hate for Poison here as they're one of the few bands of this genre that I do like (have their first 3 albums on vinyl). I feel as a general rule classic rock stations and magazines devote too much attention to 80s pop-metal, but they're not one of those bands that gets much exposure in the UK. Perhaps if I was in the US I'd feel differently.
Isn’t this kinda key to hair metal, the look? I had a whopping one ‘hair metal’ album by Great White, the album that covered Hoople’s ‘Once Bitten, Twice Shy,’ and without the band image I don’t think it was any different than a blues-based hard rock band.
I just clicked on the Cinderella track posted above...and, wow, good blues intro (could’ve been Siegel-Schwall Band or numerous others) before plunging into a Nazareth type arrangement. I know absolutely nothing about Cinderella so I’m assuming the hair metal tag is based on the look/image?
This "hair metal" nounage that is being used here is new to me. I have always heard "hair bands". I disagree with the poster here who is putting all of these bands under the heavy metal "umbrella". That's silly.
I would say that Motley Crue's first album is heavy metal. Black Sabbath is heavy metal. Led Zeppelin is hard rock. Van Halen through 1984 is hard rock. Def Leppard through Pyromania is hard rock. GNR is hard rock. Metallica through Justice, Megadeth, Slayer is heavy/thrash metal. Winger,Warrant, Poison is MTV commercial pop rock. Some of the other big bands jumped on that bandwagon. (Whitesnake,Leppard,Crue etc...)
There's a bunch of well crafted pop songs which is, ultimately, what the general public often responds to (although less and less these days). The rest is packaging, pretty much.
I'll just drop this here...
You may also like:
All The Way From Memphis
Lol!! Hetfield looks a little out of place and that does not look like Rudy Sarzo. White Lion lol!!
The mistake of thinking a band's look is key instead of their music, is you get misconceptions, not to mention, let's face it, a lot of squeamish men who can't handle the idea of men in make up = hate their music/can't take them seriously as musicians.
A band's look is that just that: a look. Window dressing. Decoration. Don't get me wrong, it's not unimportant. It is a factor. But when comparing musical merit, you have to ignore what they look like and focus on the music.
And in answer to OP's question: yes of course there is merit in hair metal, or whatever people want to call it. You had some good musicians and some bad musicians like in any genre of music.
Well, that’s my point. Or question, I guess, as I’m ignorant about the genre. If we’d all been blindfolded and heard just the music, where would we categorize it? Certainly the ‘hair’ part gets dropped!
Awesome progressive metal band!
OK I get ya. Yeah, good point. This goes back to @Curveboy point about it all being metal basically. When you think about it, it's a much more inclusive term and not as judgmental. Oh, they have tizzied hair and make up - let's put them in their own special category for no good reason other than hair and makeup. Yet, I still lean towards making category distinctions for the reasons I mentioned earlier of not mixing groups that have not much in common sound wise. If we were to drop the 'hair metal' tag, which I'd be in favour of, maybe you'd call them 'light metal' or 'pop metal'?
Like any genre, some of it holds up. First 2 Ratt lps are stellar.
I've said it before, Winger got a bad rap. Beevis and Butthead SHOULD have put that kid in a Poison t shirt.
Reb Beach is a top tier guitarist.
Power Pop with funny shaped guitars. It's all about the songs and the wit with which they are delivered. This is not music I would expect a solid artist album experience from but in a Greatest Hits or jukebox context it's almost unbeatable.
Yeah, there's no metal in any of it. It is MTV driven commercial pop rock. We are talking about 86-90 bands and their output like
Great White,Kingdom Come,Bonham (Zep clones)
Hetfield played a mean six-string alto bass!
“Pop metal” was used a fair bit at the time.
I was in high school during the heyday and loved all things metal. I still listen to it today and enjoy the younger Finnish bands who continue to play in the style.
Saw all the bands live during the time. Great White, Vixen, Winger, Stryper, Crue, Slaughter and tons of other bands.
Like a lot of others as I have grown older I also listen to tons of other stuff but this stuff still gets played a lot too.
Separate names with a comma.